Prepared for USAID/RDMA under Contract Number AID-486-1-16-000007 awarded on 08/31/2016 entitled USAID Wildlife project. This 2017 Situation Analysis is made possible by the support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). This document was completed in partial fulfillment of the approved USAID-Wildlife Asia Task Order 1 of the

referenced contract. The issues presented, views expressed and opinions contained in this plan are those of the Family Health International (FHI 360), USAID Wildlife Asia (UWA) project field team, and are not intended as statements of policy of either USAID or the contracting companies. As such, the contents of this analysis are the sole responsibility of the FHI 360-UWA field team and do not necessarily reflect

the views of USAID or the United States Government (USG).

WHAT DRIVES DEMAND FOR WILDLIFE?

A SITUATION ANALYSIS OF CONSUMER DEMAND FOR

WILDLIFE PARTS AND PRODUCTS IN CHINA, THAILAND

AND VIETNAM BASED ON A LITERATURE REVIEW (ELEPHANT – PANGOLIN – RHINO – TIGER)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2

I. INTRODCUTION 3

II. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES 4

III. METHODOLOGY 4

A. DATA COLLECTION 4

B. ANALYSIS 6

IV. LIMITATIONS 6

V. FINDINGS 7

A. CONSUMERS/USERS OF IVORY, RHINO HORN, PANGOLIN, AND TIGER 7

1. POPULATIONS CONSUMING/UTILIZING WILDLIFE IN THE THREE COUNTRIES 7

2. BASIC CONSUMER PROFILES BY WILDLIFE SPECIES AND COUNTRY 8

3. INFORMATION ABOUT SOURCES AND PROVIDERS OF THESE PRODUCTS 14

4. AWARENESS OF ILLEGALITY, CONCERN FOR WILDLIFE, AND WILLINGNESS TO

CHANGE BEHAVIORS 15

B. FINDINGS REGARDING COMMUNICATION OR DEMAND REDUCTION CAMPAIGNS ON

WILDLIFE PARTS AND PRODUCTS IN CHINA, VIETNAM, AND THAILAND 16

1. OVERVIEW OF CAMPAIGNS 16

2. STRATEGIES, CHANNELS, AND INFLUENCERS USED IN THE CAMPAIGNS 25

3. RESULTS OF THE CAMPAIGNS 26

VI. SUMMARY INSIGHTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE LITERATURE

27

VII. RESEARCH GAPS 28

A. FOR CHINA 28

1.1 BUYERS AND CONSUMERS 28

1.2 GIFT RECEIVERS 29

1.3. TCM PRACTITIONERS 30

B. FOR THAILAND 30

VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY 36

P A G E | 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The USAID Wildlife Asia (UWA) Activity is funded by the Bangkok-based USAID Regional Development

Mission for Asia (RDMA) currently managed by IRG, now RTI. The project addresses wildlife trafficking

by working to reduce demand of wildlife products and improve regional action to end wildlife crime in

Southeast Asia and China. The consumer demand reduction component of this Activity is managed by

FHI 360, an IRG/RTI sub-contractor. Illegal wildlife trafficking is directly responsible for the decline in

wildlife populations. The four primary wildlife products that are currently in high demand are elephant

ivory, rhino horn, pangolin and tiger products. The principal markets for these products are in China,

Thailand, and Vietnam.

This Situation Analysis is the first step in creating an evidence base for a UWA demand reduction

program in the three focus countries. The Analysis aimed to collect, summarize, and review consumer

research and evaluation studies of past demand reduction campaigns on ivory, pangolin, rhino horn, and

tiger products, and other literature available on the internet in these countries. It summarized and

synthesized findings on the different consumers of the four focal species, their socio-demographic

characteristics, key drivers underlying their consumption behaviors, commonalities among drivers and

consumers across countries and/or species, consumers’ perception of the risks that their purchase or

consumption behaviors posed, among others.

The findings revealed that the number of people consuming wildlife products in China, Thailand, and

Vietnam is significantly large enough to drive markets for wildlife products in these countries. There are

two key drivers underlying consumption: 1) affirmation of status and wealth (with attachment to cultural

heritage to a lesser extent); and, 2) belief that wildlife products have medicinal or health value. Ivory

consumption is mainly driven by the concern for status and wealth while tiger products are mostly

valued for their perceived medicinal/health benefits. Pangolin and rhino horn are associated with both

drivers. Consumption for medicinal value is correlated with consumption for status. Consumers are

aware that wildlife species are endangered but generally do not relate this to their own consumption.

There is a significant group of likely buyers who aspire to buy wildlife in the future.

Information on ten campaigns were accessed for this Situation Analysis. Of these, five had evaluation

components. The ten campaigns targeted general populations and aimed to raise awareness about the

dangers that consumption of wildlife have on depletion of species, wildlife crime and/or the

environment. Most messages focused on relating wildlife consumption to animal protection or wildlife

conservation issues. The campaign evaluations revealed an increase in awareness and positive attitudes

but not on practice.

In order to design effective demand reduction campaigns targeting consumers and likely buyers for

wildlife products, more information is needed. Research gaps include, among others, insights on

differences among buyers, users and gift receivers; regularity of purchase and use; sources of beliefs

about wildlife; specific influencers (family, peers, role models, traditional medicine practitioners) per

consumer segment; specific types of products consumed per species and socio-demographic differences

among those consuming them; whether those who are consuming wildlife are consuming one or more

species; what would motivate them to stop purchase of consumption.

P A G E | 3

I. INTRODCUTION

Illegal global trafficking of wildlife and wildlife products is responsible for a significant reduction of wildlife

populations in Southeast Asia and China. Elephant ivory, rhino horn, pangolin, and tiger products are

among the top items illegally trafficked around the globe; surging demand for these has led to high prices

and a lucrative business. The Wildlife

Crime Scorecard Report by the World

Wildlife Fund (WWF 2012) identified

China, Thailand, and Vietnam as the

primary destination countries in Asia for

illegal wildlife. Although demand in Thailand

is not as great as in the other two

countries, it is unique in allowing the sale of

ivory from domesticated elephants, and

therefore creates a loophole for the illegal

trade of ivory of African origin as well

(WWF 2012).

The United States Agency for International

Development (USAID) Wildlife Asia

Activity aims to end illegal wildlife traffic in

Asia through a comprehensive approach

and improved regional cooperation.

Desired outcomes for the Activity include

reduction in consumer demand for wildlife

parts and products; improved enforcement

of existing laws, policies, and agreements

related to wildlife crime; passage and

implementation of new laws, policies, or reforms; improved cooperation and collaboration among

regional, international, and inter-institutional law enforcement; and increased collaboration and

coordination between development partners and United States Government (USG) agencies involved in

combating wildlife trafficking.

The USAID Wildlife Asia (UWA) Activity is funded by the

Bangkok-based USAID Regional Development Mission for Asia

(RDMA) currently managed by International Resource Group

(IRG), now RTI. The project addresses wildlife trafficking by

working to reduce demand of wildlife products and improve

regional action to end wildlife crime in Southeast Asia and China.

The consumer demand reduction component of this Activity is

managed by FHI 360, an IRG/RTI sub-contractor.

FHI 360 is responsible for activities to reduce consumer demand

for wildlife parts and products in China, Vietnam, and Thailand.

In China, FHI 360 is collaborating with another project sub-

contractor, the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW).

FHI 360 utilizes a social and behavior change communication

(SBCC) framework and a systematic planning and

implementation approach to bring about positive changes in

behaviors and social norms. The SBCC framework is based on a

socio-ecological model (figure 1), which recognizes the relationship

between people and their immediate and broader environment.

SBCC C- Planning Process

Figure 2: SBCC C-Planning

Figure 1: Socio-Ecological Model for Change

P A G E | 4

The SBCC planning process (figure 2) utilizes research to understand the behavioral determinants—

benefits, barriers, and influences on different population segments—that drive behaviors. These

determinants may arise at various levels: personal, family, community, and/or the larger environment

(social, political, religious, and economic).

Insights obtained from formative research are then used to design strategies to promote change.

Strategies may include advocacy, social mobilization, and/or behavior change communication (BCC) at multiple

levels.

As background for such formative research, the USAID Wildlife Asia Activity commissioned a Situation

Analysis of consumer demand for four species of wildlife parts and products in China, Thailand, and

Vietnam to survey what is already known. The work was conducted in January and February of 2017

II. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

The Situation Analysis was the first step in creating an evidence base for a systematic SBCC program in

the three target countries. The purpose was to collect, summarize, and review consumer research

studies and evaluations conducted as part of past demand reduction campaigns on ivory, pangolin, rhino

horn, and tiger. The work focused on five objectives:

1. Summarize and synthesize the current evidence or “state-of-the-art knowledge” on

consumer behaviors and demand reduction activities

2. Define the key consumer segments

3. Determine the significant drivers underlying purchase and consumption

4. Assess commonalities of drivers and barriers across species and/or consumer

segments and/or countries

5. Identify gaps in consumer-related research

In the next phase of the program, additional research will be conducted to address critical gaps in

knowledge.

III. METHODOLOGY

A. DATA COLLECTION

The Situation Analysis was based on a review of publications, gray literature available on the internet,

and electronic blogs. Some partner organizations also provided reports of research they commissioned.

Priorities for collection and analysis included reports of original consumer research and evaluations of

demand reduction campaigns focused on the four species of interest in the three priority countries.

Google Scholar was the main source of documents. The following key words/search strings were used:

“wildlife consumer research,” “wildlife consumer study,” “wildlife demand reduction,” “wildlife

consumer behavior change,” “China tiger elephant rhino pangolin,” “Vietnam tiger elephant rhino

pangolin,” “Thailand tiger elephant rhino pangolin.” Searches were conducted in English and Vietnamese

for publications between the past 10 years. Seventeen consumer research studies and five case studies

of campaigns were reviewed. In addition, 46 articles, reports, and blogs were also analyzed. These cover

reports on market trends, articles on wildlife demand reduction in general, opinion pieces, individual

blog posts that were shared by colleagues or found from internet searches.

P A G E | 5

Tables 1, 2, and 3 below provide breakdowns of sources reviewed in these three basic categories and

the species and country/ies they covered.

Table 1 shows that, of the 17 consumer research studies reviewed, most concerned China (10),

followed by Vietnam (6). No relevant consumer research was found focusing on Thailand. One study

looked at the situation regarding elephant ivory in several countries (China, the Philippines, Thailand, the

United States, and Vietnam). The largest number of studies looked at ivory (5) and the smallest at tiger

(1). The multi-species studies (3) included a wide array of wildlife species that are used in traditional

medicine or as wild meat for consumption including all the four target species.

*Note: All of the studies combined qualitative and quantitative methods

All of the campaign

studies reviewed

combined quantitative and

qualitative methods. No

studies of campaigns were

found that focused on

pangolin or tiger. Two

campaigns (one in

Vietnam and one in Thailand) focused on multiple wildlife species.

TABLE 1: CONSUMER RESEARCH STUDIES

COUNTRY IVORY RHINO HORN

PANGOLIN TIGER MULTI-SPECIES TOTAL

Q1 Q2

C Q1

Q2

C Q1 Q2 C Q1 Q2 C Q1 Q2

C

China 1 - 3 - 1 1 2 - - - - 1 1 - - 10

Vietnam - - - - 2 1 1 - - - - 1 1 - 6

Thailand - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Multi-country - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

Total 1 - 4 - 1 3 3 1 - - - 1 2 1 - 17

Note: Q1 = quantitative; Q2 = qualitative; C = combined quantitative and qualitative methods

TABLE 2: STUDIES OF COMMUNICATION CAMPAIGNS*

COUNTRY IVORY RHINO HORN

PANGOLIN TIGER MULTI-

SPECIES

TOTAL

China 2 1 - - - 3

Vietnam - - - - 1 1

Thailand - - - - 1 1

Total 2 1 - - 2 5

P A G E | 6

Of the 46 additional

sources reviewed, the

largest number focused

on multiple species (27).

Ten focused on elephant

ivory.

B. ANALYSIS

Information contained in the studies that pertained to our primary study objectives—i.e., regarding the

different consumers of wildlife, the drivers of their demand, and any commonalities of these drivers

across countries and/or species—was summarized in a matrix by country and by wildlife species. We

were then able to identify gaps in what is known and where further research is needed.

In addition to answering our primary research questions, we hoped to gather information about several

secondary issues. From the consumer research studies, we hoped to learn whether the identified

population segments are aware of the risks that their purchase and consumption behaviors entail. If so,

why do they continue to consume or desire to consume? From the campaign evaluations, we hoped to

learn what messages and channels have been used to reduce consumption practices, what/who might

influence consumer segments who are resistant to change, and what results were achieved by the

campaigns. We were also interested in the recommendations made by the authors of these different

studies.

IV. LIMITATIONS

The Situation Analysis was limited by several factors. Our review only considered documents/blogs

written in English or Vietnamese. Studies written in Chinese or Thai languages were not included. We

found very few studies on Thailand, and these were primarily about ivory. Insights into consumer

demand for wildlife in Thailand and the extent and drivers of this demand are therefore limited. Studies

focused on urban areas, so information about target groups in rural areas is lacking. The review was

paper- and internet-based, and did not include follow-up questions with authors about their

methodologies or about any additional recommendations they might have. The most recent studies

gathered were in 2016 before China announced the Domestic Ban on Ivory for 2017. No information

relevant to the Ban on ivory consumption in China, therefore, is contained in this review.

TABLE 3: ARTICLES, BLOGS, AND REPORTS ABOUT CONSUMER DEMAND

COUNTRY IVORY RHINO HORN

PANGOLIN TIGER MULTI-

SPECIES

TOTAL

China 1 - 1 1 3 6

Vietnam 1 4 - - 5 10

Thailand 6 - 1 - 3 10

Multi-country

2 1 - 1 16 20

Total 10 5 2 2 27 46

P A G E | 7

V. FINDINGS

The findings are organized in two parts: (a) information about consumers, primarily gained from the

qualitative research studies, and (b) information about campaign strategies and results.

A. CONSUMERS/USERS OF IVORY, RHINO HORN, PANGOLIN, AND TIGER

1. SIZE OF POPULATIONS CONSUMING/UTILIZING WILDLIFE IN THE THREE COUNTRIES

The studies showed that very large numbers of people consume wildlife parts and products in China,

Thailand, and Vietnam. Based on the proportions to overall populations, these numbers are large

enough to drive markets in these countries. Most of the studies were conducted in urban areas, so the

situations in rural areas may be different for each species.

Most studies measured consumer demand by asking whether the animal or related parts/products had

been acquired in the last year. According to this measure, pangolin meat is in high demand in China. A

2015 study found that 8.7 percent of people surveyed had eaten pangolin meat in the past year (Horizon

China for HSI & AITA Foundation 2016). In another study, results showed that 10 percent of the

population surveyed in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Hangzhou, Nanning and Kunming had purchased

pangolin products (WildAid 2015).

In Thailand, two studies (Rapid Asia 2013 and Rapid Asia 2016) both showed that 11 percent of those

surveyed in the greater Bangkok area bought medicine or products made from wildlife although the

species were not specified.

One study in Vietnam found that 4.2 percent of the population surveyed had bought or consumed

rhino horn in the past year (Nielsen 2013). However, in another study in Vietnam, the current usage is

low but with high risk of increase: 16 percent of non-users said they intended to purchase rhino horn in

the future, even though they had never done so to date. Among those who had used rhino horn, 60

percent said they intended to purchase again (Ipsos 2013).

Ivory is highly valued in both China and Thailand. However, studies generally asked whether

respondents owned any ivory—without regard to when they may have acquired it. Since ivory is not

“consumed” but is made into products such as carvings, jewelry, trinkets or home décor items that may

be kept for many years (handed down from generations and re-sold to a new owner as an antique),

measuring ownership per se makes it difficult to know what the implications are for wild elephants.

Horizonkey for IFAW (2007) survey in China indicated that 14.5 percent of urban residents surveyed

owned products made of ivory. A study in 2015 found that in Thailand, 5 percent of those surveyed

owned ivory and 1 percent had bought ivory in the past three years (National Geographic 2015). The

same study found that in Vietnam, 2 percent of the population surveyed owned ivory and 1 percent

had purchased an ivory product in the past three years. Studies also indicated large numbers of people

who do not currently own ivory aspire to do so. Among all of those surveyed in 2015 in China,

Vietnam, and Thailand, 22 percent said they would likely buy ivory in the future (National Geographic

2015).

P A G E | 8

Tiger parts or products are highly valued in China. A study (Gratwicke et al. 2008) found that 43

percent of respondents had consumed some product alleged to contain tiger parts. The two

predominant products used were tiger bone plasters (38 percent) and tiger bone wine (6.4 percent).

2. BASIC CONSUMER PROFILES BY WILDLIFE SPECIES AND COUNTRY

Among those who consumed wildlife, two important determinants or drivers of consumption stood out:

• Affirmation of status, wealth/investment, enjoyment of luxury accorded to purchasing, owning,

and/or gifting wildlife products

• Belief that specific wildlife products have medicinal value

Two species were each associated with one key driver. Ivory was driven mainly by a concern for status

and wealth (and association with tradition/cultural heritage). In Thailand, ivory was also associated with

religion/superstitious belief. We did not find any studies associating purchase or ownership of ivory for

medicinal purposes. On the other hand, tiger parts were valued mainly for their medicinal properties.

Status and wealth were not associated with owning or using tiger parts although one study in China

(Gratwicke et al. 2008) revealed that those who bought tiger products were wealthy. This may also be

due to the limited number of studies on tiger accessed.

Pangolin and rhino horn were associated with both status and medicinal drivers, making analysis of

consumer segments for these species a bit more complex. The specific medicinal values or powers

attributed to tiger, pangolin, and rhino horn varied by species and to a lesser extent by country.

In China, women mainly comprise those who buy ivory for jewelry and post-menopausal women use

tiger bone for rheumatoid arthritis and osteoporosis. In Vietnam, women constitute a significant

number of those purchasing rhino horn for the general health or medicinal needs of their families while

pangolin scales are consumed by lactating mothers to enhance breast milk.

The tables that follow in this section present consumer profiles by animal species and secondarily by

country and major determinants of use.

a. Consumers of ivory

Table 4 shows that in all three countries, ivory was considered to be a material with special qualities and

was highly valued. In Thailand, the white color of ivory was associated with purity; it is commonly used

in religious carvings. Objects made of ivory are especially suitable as gifts, reflecting positively on the

status and taste of both giver and recipient, and purchasers included both males and females. Those able

to buy ivory were generally more affluent, but people who could not presently afford it also aspired to

purchase ivory. In Vietnam, a total of 71 percent of those surveyed said they intended to purchase ivory

either soon or when they were able. Likely buyers described themselves as fashionable, social and

religious, and inclined to buy ivory as a gift.

P A G E | 9

COUNTRY CONSUMER PROFILES—IVORY

CHINA Geographic locations of studies: Shanghai, Beijing, tier 1, 2, 3 urban cities

Consumers generally fell into three categories:

Purchase for home décor: 39 percent of current buyers and 37 percent of potential buyers. Included both sexes, moderately affluent, willing to pay more for an item. One out of three considered themselves collectors. They bought ivory to show good taste and to connect with cultural heritage.

Purchase as gift: 31% of current buyers and 23% of potential buyers. These were mostly males, 35-50 years old, and moderately affluent. They purchased for friends 70% and business relations 40% to said ivory showed respect for the recipients and reflected the status and wealth of the giver.

Purchase of jewelry (for self): 24 percent of current buyers and 24% of potential buyers. These were mostly females and younger and less affluent than other buyers. They had only purchased ivory once or twice in their lives and did so to show their good taste. They were concerned about being judged regarding their choices.

Source of ivory: Most consumers bought ivory from licensed stores; however nearly one-third purchased ivory overseas and one-fifth purchased ivory from unlicensed sellers.

Concern for wildlife and willingness to change behavior: Among those purchasing ivory for home décor, 41 percent had made their purchase from an unauthorized shop. They were generally not worried about the legality of their behavior. They considered conservation important but didn’t see the link. On the other hand, they said they would not purchase ivory if their friends disapproved.

Gift buyers were willing to consider other high priced materials (e.g., jade, agate, and rosewood) as substitutes. Most knew what they were buying was illegal. They were willing to buy gifts from authorized stores.

Among those purchasing ivory jewelry, there was little awareness of a link to the killing of elephants; although they were concerned about animal cruelty, 30 percent felt elephants were too far away from their lives in China to think much about. Most were unaware it is illegal to purchase ivory and those who were aware did not think there was much risk of enforcement.

(Source: China Market Research Group for IFAW 2016)

When asked if they would buy ivory in the future, 75 percent said that they would not, and said it was wrong to kill endangered elephants.

Consumers surveyed for this study also bought ivory online via websites and social media.

(Source: Rapid Asia 2015)

THAILAND

Geographic locations of studies: cities of Greater Bangkok, Chiang Mai, Chon Buri, Khon Kaen, and Surat Thani

Ivory was considered especially suitable for gift-giving. Likely buyers were in the 18- to 34-year-old age group; 99 percent were Buddhist.

One-third of those surveyed said ivory is sacred, sublime, noble, and exotic. This perception is tied to its common use in religious carvings and because of its whiteness and purity.

Purchase of ivory was also motivated to convey financial and social status.

Concern for wildlife and willingness to change behavior: Of those surveyed, only 25 percent were aware of the illegal killing of elephants for ivory, illegal smuggling, or the danger of elephant extinction; 54 percent of those surveyed believed governments around the world are doing a good job protecting nature. They were also supportive of a ban on all buying, selling, importing, and exporting of ivory.

For information about environmental issues, most of those surveyed said they learned from documentaries. Internet was the fourth most-cited source. Only 48 of those surveyed used the Internet weekly.

(Source: National Geographic 2015)

VIETNAM Geographic locations of studies: Hanoi, HCMC, Da Nang and Can Tho

Among those surveyed, 14 percent said they intended to purchase ivory in the near future and affordability was not an obstacle. The majority of these likely buyers were under 55 years old, married, completed high school at most, and with average or below average incomes. Most had some religious affiliation or were Buddhist.

Another 57 percent would like to buy ivory in the near future but will not be able to do so until their financial situation improves.

Ivory was considered valuable as a gift. It projects status on both the recipient and the giver, and gives happiness.

Concern for wildlife and willingness to change behavior: Buyers believed that African elephants were declining and that most ivory sold nationally was illegal. However, because they believed some governments intentionally destroy their ivory, they felt it was urgent to purchase ivory before it becomes unavailable. Among buyers, 76 percent said they had confidence in the ability of governments around the world to protect nature and 91 percent said they would support a governmental ban on all trading of ivory in the country. While support for regulation was high, it was not strongly linked to individual purchase intent.

(Source: National Geographic 2015)

P A G E | 10

b. Consumers of tiger/tiger products

Information about consumers of tiger and tiger parts was found for China and Vietnam. In both

countries, tiger bones and plaster made from tiger bones was thought to help in treating arthritis and

other bone problems and to improve joint-related problems. In China, tiger-bone wine was also thought

to improve sexual prowess. Consumers tended to be older and included both men and women.

Consumers in China were generally older, well-educated, and wealthy.

c. Consumers of rhino horn

As for tiger, information about consumers of rhino horn was found for China and Vietnam but not for

Thailand. Rhino horn is used in Chinese medicine and is thought to be especially efficacious for

rheumatism and erectile dysfunction (China) and also to detoxify the body (Vietnam). The medicinal

qualities associated with rhino horn seemed to be well known, and purchasers were driven largely by

their beliefs in those special powers, and by the status associated with a purchase. Rhino horn is

expensive and can be hard to find. It was considered a valuable gift. Among those surveyed in the two

countries, both men and women purchased rhino horn.

TABLE 5: CONSUMERS OF TIGER PARTS BY COUNTRY AND DETERMINANTS/CHARACTERISTICS OF USE

COUNTRY CONSUMER PROFILES—TIGER

CHINA

Geographic locations of study: Kunming, Guilin, Harbin, Chengdu, Guangzhou, Shanghai, and Beijing

(Consumption is said to be highest in Chengdu and Shanghai.)

43 percent of those surveyed said they had ever consumed some product alleged to contain tiger parts.

Consumers were older (>55 years old), urban, well-educated, and wealthy and used tiger parts as a medicine and/or tonic. Tiger bone wine and tiger bone plaster were the most common products. Consumers believed that both of these heal bone degeneration and improve joint-related conditions, such as arthritis and rheumatism. Tiger-bone wine is also said to improve male sexual prowess.

A large number of post-menopausal women reported using tiger bone for rheumatoid arthritis and osteoporosis.

Most consumers of tiger (71 percent) preferred products from wild tigers over those captive bred.

Concern for wildlife and willingness to change behavior: Most of those surveyed said they supported tiger conservation and thought it was important to protect wild tigers. However, this did not prevent them from consuming.

(Source: Gratwicke et al. 2008)

VIETNAM

Geographic locations of study: Hanoi, HCMC

Consumers were older

Consumers used tiger plaster most to treat arthritis and bone problems, as well as to improve general health.

Consumers were shifting from traditional physical markets to use online platforms to purchase tiger products.

(Source: TRAFFIC no date)

THAILAND (No information found)

P A G E | 11

TABLE 6: CONSUMERS OF RHINO HORN BY COUNTRY AND DETERMINANTS/CHARACTERISTICS OF USE

COUNTRY CONSUMER PROFILES—RHINO HORN

CHINA

Geographic locations of study: Harbin, Guangzhou, Kunming, Beijing, and Shanghai

A study in 2016 found that those surveyed who used rhino horn were driven by two factors:

48.3 percent were driven wholly or mostly by medicinal beliefs

12.2 percent were driven wholly or mostly by luxury status

21.3 percent were driven by both luxury and medicinal reasons

The same study found that purchasers of rhino horn included those who use it in the home and those who buy it as a gift.

Buyers of rhino horn for their own use were middle aged (aged 36-45), well-educated, and wealthy. They favored Chinese medicine for rheumatism, and erectile dysfunction. They believed that Chinese medicine had fewer side effects than Western medicine. They chose Western medicine to treat common conditions such as fever, rash, and hangover.

Place of purchase: Consumers bought Chinese medicine in traditional medicine hospitals (44.2 percent), general pharmacies (28.3 percent), general hospitals (26.9 percent), Chinese medicine clinics (15.4 percent), and general clinics (11.4 percent).

Those buying rhino horn as a gift were young (aged 18-45), well-educated males from the growing middle and upper classes. The main reason for buying horn as a luxury good was to “give as a gift” to friends, family members, and associates because it was “unique,” “rare,” traditional,” associated with prestige, and a sign of success.

Concern for wildlife or willingness to change behavior: Around 25 percent of those surveyed were not aware that purchasing rhino horn was illegal. Over 70 percent of those surveyed thought it was difficult to buy rhino horn, but most believed the risk of arrest for buying rhino horn was average or low. Only the wealthy can purchase rhino, and when prices are low, potential buyers worry that the goods are fake. These buyers did not care about the rhino population and it had little or no effect on purchasing.

(Source: Kennaugh 2016)

VIETNAM

Geographic locations of study: Hanoi, and HCMC

Medicinal-driven buyers of rhino horn were also status-driven. They were generally affluent women in their 50s who purchased rhino horn for their families. While their main reason for purchasing rhino horn was to affirm their social status, they also believed in its health benefits (as a detoxification for the body and cure for hangover and serious illnesses). They felt that keeping rhino horn at home ensured the well-being of their families.

Buyers were often middle-aged or older women, wealthy business owners, and well-educated people buying for their parents. Both buyers and users tended to have health problems (e.g., bone and joint issues, stroke, cancer) and to be conscious of maintaining good health to continue enjoying life.

Rhino horn was also bought as a gift for others, including family members, business associates, or those in the position of authority. Owning rhino horn or being able to give it as a gift affirmed social status and strengthened bonds within a social network.

Concern for wildlife or willingness to change behavior: Although those using rhino horn knew animals were killed for horn, they felt disconnected from this. Some felt that even if the species were to be lost forever, they personally would not be affected. There was a strong sense of trust within the social networks of consumers, and they were not concerned about engaging in an illegal activity.

(Source: Ipsos 2013)

THAILAND

Rhino horn (no info)

P A G E | 12

d. Consumers of pangolin

Again, information was found about consumers of pangolin for China and Vietnam but not for Thailand.

Respondents said pangolin is eaten as meat, is made into a wine, and its scales are also used for

medicinal purposes. Like rhino horn, pangolin is associated with powerful medicinal qualities and also

with high status. It is valued as a treatment for rheumatism, skin disorders, and wound infections and to

improve both the quality and quantity of breastmilk in lactating mothers (specifically pangolin scales). In

Vietnam, pangolin is also used to treat asthma and cancer and to increase libido.

P A G E | 13

TABLE 7: CONSUMERS OF PANGOLIN PRODUCTS COUNTRY AND DETERMINANTS/CHARACTERISTICS OF USE

COUNTRY CONSUMER PROFILES—PANGOLIN

CHINA

Geographic locations of study: Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Hangzhou, Nanning, and Kunming

In one study, 10 percent of those surveyed purchased pangolin; among consumers, 66 percent used prescription medicines containing scales or consumed pangolin liquor.

Among those surveyed, 70 percent believed that pangolins had medicinal value. The majority believed scales could cure rheumatism, skin disorders, and wound infections.

Pangolin meat was consumed largely because it is an “expensive status symbol” and “exotic wild animal” (no proportion mentioned)

Source of pangolin: 63 percent of the people surveyed believed pangolin products came from farmed pangolins, while many (50 percent) believed they also came from poached animals

74 percent believed consuming pangolin was illegal.

(Source: WildAid 2015)

Geographic locations of study: Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Harbin, Fuzhou, Wuhan, Chengdu, Xi’an, Taiyuan, Kunming

In this study, of those surveyed, 9 percent ate pangolin meat; 14 percent consumed medicine with pangolin

Source of pangolin: Consumers mentioned three main sources of the pangolins for meat or medicinal products: “wild pangolins in China” (55.2%); “captive-bred pangolins” (53%); and “illegally smuggled pangolins” (43.3 percent)

Concern for wildlife and willingness to change behavior: Of those surveyed, 82 percent said they believed pangolin was endangered and needed to be protected and that they would not use any medicine or health care products derived from pangolins in the future.

(Source: Horizon China for HSI and AITA Foundation 2016)

VIETNAM

Geographic locations of studies: Hanoi, HCMC, Da Nang, Hai Phong

Among those surveyed, 4 percent had consumed pangolin; they purchased wine, meat, and scales

Among those surveyed, 8 percent said they believed pangolins had medicinal properties. They said pangolin helped increase libido, treat rheumatism, asthma, skin diseases, cancer, swelling, hangover (detoxify), and promote lactation. (Pangolin consumers included lactating mothers who believed the scales improve breast milk quality and quantity.) An additional 64 percent of those surveyed said they had heard of such “curative” properties but were not certain they were true.

Consumers were high and upper middle income people living in cities. They consumed pangolin because it: a) is rare, b) when wild, has medicinal value, and c) is expensive and therefore shows prestige of the user even though consumers believed it was illegal.

(Source: WildAid 2015)

Among traditional Chinese medicine practitioners in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City in 2012: 86.1 percent believed pangolin scales enhanced the quantity and quality of breast milk; 70.8 percent believed they purged toxins from the body; 29.2 percent thought they reduced fever; and 26.2 percent thought they reduced inflammation.

(Source: Education for Nature, Vietnam 2016)

THAILAND (no info)

P A G E | 14

e. Summary of medicinal qualities of the different species and purchasers

Table 8 below summarizes the most common beliefs about the medicinal qualities of the three (tiger,

rhino horn, pangolin) wildlife species, by country. Views about these qualities were relatively similar

across countries. In addition to the specific illnesses or conditions that different animals/parts were

thought to treat/cure, each (especially the wild meat/parts) were thought to restore general good health

and balance. Respondents often mentioned that these products were used to treat degenerative

ailments, problems with libido or sexual dysfunction, or to detoxify (purify) the body and provide

strength. Consumers included both males and females.

Although consumers of these products generally also used Western medicine, use of traditional

medicines, including those with wild animal/s as an ingredient, are embedded in the culture and thought

(unlike modern or Western medicine) to have little or no side effects. For some illnesses, particularly

fatal or chronic diseases wildlife products are considered as “best of the best,” “last solution” or “last

resource” (e.g., rhino horn) (Ipsos 2013) Use of these rare/exotic products is also a sign of prestige.

3. INFORMATION ABOUT SOURCES AND PROVIDERS OF THESE PRODUCTS

Sources of the endangered wildlife species of interest to this Situational Analysis varied by species. Ivory

was purchased in both legal and illegal retail outlets (Min, Shen, Wang Jin, Liu Lixia 2007). Purchasers of

rhino horn, pangolin, and tiger were able to acquire it as an ingredient to traditional Chinese medicine

from multiple outlets, even including public hospitals and clinics (Kennaugh 2016). Traditional medicine is

sold all over in China, even in public hospitals.

While many consumers continued to buy wildlife and wildlife products in retail stores, illegal wildlife trade today is

also becoming available via online platforms in Asia and globally. One online survey focusing on Facebook in

Vietnam (Nguyen 2016) over a six-month period revealed that elephants (ivory, foot stumps, whole tails,

tail hairs), big cats (including tigers), and pangolin (meat and scales) were being advertised on Facebook

accounts. Products also included pangolin scales carved into Buddha plates and sold as lucky charms and

the bodies of pangolin with scales removed (sold as meat).

TABLE 8: SUMMARY OF MEDICINAL QUALITIES OF SPECIES BY COUNTRY

COUNTRY TIGER BONE RHINO HORN PANGOLIN

China Bone degeneration, joint-related conditions such as arthritis and rheumatism (Tiger-bone plaster and wine); sexual capacity (Tiger-bone wine)

Rheumatism, erectile dysfunction, detoxification for the body, hangover, serious illnesses such as cancer

Libido, rheumatism, asthma, body detoxification, skin disorder, wound infections, breast milk quality and quantity

Vietnam Arthritis and bone problems, general health improvements (Tiger-bone plaster and wine)

Detoxification for the body, hangover, serious illnesses such as cancer

Libido, rheumatism, asthma, detoxification for the body, breast milk quality and quantity

Thailand Aches & pains (bone plaster), sexual capacity (bone wine)

Insufficient information (Scales purge) Body heat, fever, inflammation, blood circulation, acne, boils, measles, malaria, and even cancer

P A G E | 15

One source reviewed for this study indicated the illegal wildlife trade has increased in China and

Vietnam via social media (e.g., Facebook and WeChat) and on smaller e-commerce websites (TRAFFIC

nd). Since online trade is largely unregulated, anonymous, open 24 hours a day, and has unlimited reach,

internet purchases are perceived by buyers as especially low-risk.

4. AWARENESS OF ILLEGALITY, CONCERN FOR WILDLIFE, AND WILLINGNESS TO CHANGE

BEHAVIORS

Although there was widespread awareness that elephants are endangered and it is illegal to kill them,

some purchasers of ivory were not aware that elephants have to be killed for their tusks (China Market

Research Group for IFAW 2016; The Nature Conservancy 2015). Most consumers of wildlife products

were aware that the products they purchased were illegal, but they considered the risks of a fine or

arrest very low (China Market Research Group for IFAW 2016; WildAid 2015, National Geographic

2015.)

The studies revealed some ambivalent and even contradictory responses among those who said they

knew their purchases involved killing endangered animals. Some considered the connection to them

personally as remote or of little concern (National Geographic 2015). At the same time, some agreed

that they would not make such purchases in future (Horizon China for HSI and AITA Foundation 2016).

People generally agreed that stronger government actions should be taken to curb wildlife consumption

(National Geographic 2015) and/or to impose a ban on the trade (including domestic) of ivory (WildAid

2012).

Pertinent laws remain inadequate or ineffectively enforced (China Market Research Group for IFAW

2016). Stronger enforcement was needed across the three countries across species or wildlife. Most of

the studies revealed that users consider risk as average or low (Kennaugh. 2016) and consumption of

pangolin should be banned (Horizon China for HSI and AITA Foundation 2016). In China, this included

pangolin meat consumption, medicine consumption or commercial use of pangolin. Vallianos (2016)

suggested China should be encouraged to remove pangolins from the Pharmacopoeia of the People’s

Republic of China and end the use of scales in patented medicines and clinical trials. Chinese and

Vietnamese traditional medicine journals and websites should also be encouraged to stop advocating use

of pangolin scales in medical treatment.

P A G E | 16

B. FINDINGS REGARDING COMMUNICATION OR DEMAND REDUCTION CAMPAIGNS

ON WILDLIFE PARTS AND PRODUCTS IN CHINA, VIETNAM, AND THAILAND

1. OVERVIEW OF CAMPAIGNS

For this Situation Analysis, information on ten communication campaigns aimed at reducing wildlife

consumption in the three countries were reviewed. These were the campaigns either shared by

organizations or could be readily accessed through our internet search. This section includes

information about their objectives and target audiences, the strategies used, and (when available) results

and lesson learned/recommendations for future efforts. Only five of these were systematically evaluated

(the first five described on Table 10)

Table 10 below presents some basic information about these ten campaigns.

TABLE 9: CONSUMER AWARENESS OF ILLEGALITY AND PERCEPTION OF RISK

(SPECIES) CHINA VIETNAM THAILAND

Ivory

Home décor buyers not worried about legal issues; 1/5 purchased from unlicensed sellers (China Market Research Group for IFAW 2016)

Many believed most ivory sold was illegal and some governments have intentionally destroyed ivory (National Geographic 2015)

From 60% to 70% of people surveyed have had some awareness about the illegal killing of wild elephants for their ivory, the smuggling of illegal ivory, or the possibility of elephant extinction; 44% claim to have heard a great deal about these issues. (National Geographic 2015)

Rhino Horn

Over 70% thought buying rhino horn was difficult but most believed risk of arrest for buying was average to low (Kennaugh 2016)

Those buying rhino horn were aware that they were engaging in an illegal activity (Ipsos 2013)

Pangolin 43% of users believed pangolins were illegally smuggled (Horizon China for HSI and AITA Foundation 2016)

Users believed consuming was illegal (WildAid 2015)

Tiger 88% of users knew it was illegal to buy/sell tiger products (Gratwicke 2008)

Multi-species HCMC residents surveyed do not know clearly about wild animal trade. They think that trading of any wild species is illegal (Do Thi Thanh Huyen, Bui Huu Manh et al, 2011.)

P A G E | 17

TABLE 10: CAMPAIGNS TO REDUCE CONSUMPTION OF IVORY, RHINO, TIGER, AND GENERAL WILDLIFE

CAMPAIGN/DATE OBJECTIVES/TARGET AUDIENCE

KEY MESSAGES/ STRATEGIES/CHANNELS

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY RESULTS

iTHINK campaign, China (ivory)

Dates of campaign/s: 2013-2015

http://www.freeland. org/wp-content/downloads/ toolkits/iThink/ITHINK-ads- videos-surveys-China.zip

Objective: Reduce demand for ivory in China and attract online visitors to the Freeland website and Facebook page

Target: Consumers and potential consumers of ivory, law enforcement officers, and policy makers

Exposure to nine PSAs via print media supported by social media

Messages focused on:

Raising awareness that ivory comes from dead elephants

Raising awareness that demand for ivory kills elephants

Raising awareness that elephants needs to be protected

Making people feel concerned about elephants (emotional appeal)

Making people question their need for ivory (moral appeal)

Discouraging people from buying ivory

PSA A: I refuse all ivory products. I hope to see strong banning ivory trade, and artists reject carving with ivory.

PSA B: Every 15 minutes an elephant is killed for ivory. I hope we can erect a strong protective fence for elephants with our conscience.

PSA C: Be an ethical collector. Do not take away the only treasure of an elephant – his tusks.

PSA D: When an elephant, tiger and rhino one by one disappear from the earth, how long can we survive alone here?

Rapid Asia, a research agency hired to conduct evaluation study

Data collection: Online panel

Target group: Ivory buyers/non-buyers ages 18 to 64 yea rs

Sample: N=500+ (half male, half female)

Sample weighting: between 2013 (baseline) and 2015

Questionnaire

- Screening questions based on target respondent criteria

- Ownership and purchase behavior for ivory products

- Exposure and perception about law enforcement

- Exposure to the IFAW PSA and media source

Those who claimed they bought ivory in the past 12 months declined from 44% in 2013 to 33% in 2015. However, the recent auction ban in China is likely to have contributed to this decline. The slowing economy in China may also be a contributing factor.

Overall KAP index was 17 points higher at endline than at baseline.

Overall 62 percent of the urban population surveyed confirmed they had seen the PSAs when shown pictures of them.

No particular demographic profile of ivory buyers. However, a higher proportion is female in management with higher income.

Main motivation to buy ivory is 1) decoration and 2) jewelry; most purchases were in retail stores.

Reasons for not buying in the future included feeling it is ‘wrong as elephants are killed’ and ‘elephants are endangered.’

Potential reasons to stop buying ivory (future buyers) include “it may be bad for luck,” “strong recommendations from government leaders,” and “make it illegal to buy ivory”

P A G E | 18

PSA E: Live elephants or blood-stained ivory? We should leave the former as our legacy!

PSA F: “When the so-called “beauty” oversteps the bounds of morality, it is ugliness and evil”

PSA G: I know elephants are killed for the ivory trade. I will never buy ivory.

PSA H: The most powerful weapon to protect elephant is our humanity.

PSA I: We cannot let elephants die for our frivolous appetite for ivory.

ITHINK campaign Thailand (wildlife)

Dates of campaign/s: 2013-2015

http://www.freeland. org/wp-content/downloads/ toolkits/iThink/ITHINK-ads- videos-surveys-Thailand.zip

Objective: Reduce demand for wildlife in Thailand and attract online visitors to the Freeland website and Face book page.

Target groups: Consumers and potential consumers of wildlife products, law enforcement officers, and policy makers

Exposure to four PSAs via mass media, social media, websites, billboards, BTS sky train, and magazines, as well as newspaper featuring different spokespersons

Messages focused on:

Raising awareness that buying wildlife can contribute to animal cruelty

Raising awareness that buying and selling wildlife kill wild animals

Raising awareness that many species are endangered and need protection

Making people feel concerned about wildlife

Making people respect the law against illegal wildlife trade

Encouraging people to take action to support wildlife protection

Rapid Asia, a research agency hired to conduct evaluation study

Target group: Buyers/non-buyers ages 18 to 64 years

KAP Score

N = 300

Data collection using an already-established online panel in Thailand

The sampling method used was quota sampling to ensure representation of the greater Bangkok population and having matched samples between the exposure and control groups

The PSAs were shown online via online streaming. Each respondent tested two PSAs and they were tested in rotation order and in random pairs to eliminate any form of order-bias

Overall, 63 percent of the population surveyed in Bangkok said they had seen the PSAs when shown pictures of them.

Among buyers of wildlife products, reach was 82 percent. Of those reached, 11 percent could recall that FREELAND sponsored the campaign.

Between 54 and 71 percent said the PSAs made they stop and think about the issue and many said would talk to others about the PSA messages.

Overall KAP index for past buyers of wildlife products was 27 points higher at endline than at baseline and for non-buyers change was 7 points.

11% of those surveyed in the greater Bangkok area bought medicine or a product made from wildlife in the past 12 months. Buyers include people of different ages, sex, and incomes.

The main reason to buy wildlife products is medicine (increase from 63% in 2013 to 91% in 2015) followed by jewelry or fashion item and as decoration for the home. Some buy as a gift or religious item; 23% reported buying wildlife to keep as a pet

One in two people have only bought wildlife products once or twice; more than one third

P A G E | 19

Discouraging people from buying or consuming wildlife or wildlife product

have bought it occasionally; 6% of past buyers reported that they buy it regularly (consistent with 2013 result).

Past buyers of wildlife products are 12 times more likely (12%) to state that they may buy wildlife products in the future compared to those who did not buy wildlife products in the past 12 months (1%).

Those who say they will not buy in the future say they feel it is wrong (64%), is against the law (62%), come from endangered species (57%), no desire (56%), and don’t see the benefit of buying (41%)

ITHINK campaign, Vietnam (wildlife)

Dates of campaign/s: 2013-2015

http://www.freeland. org/wp-content/downloads/ toolkits/iThink/ITHINK-ads- videos-surveys-Vietnam.zip

Objective: Reduce demand for wildlife products, initiate a downward trend in wildlife consumption while at the same time attract online visitors to the Freeland website and Facebook .

Target groups: Consumers and potential consumers of wildlife products, law enforcement officers, and policy makers

Seven PSAs featuring different spokespersons discussing the wildlife trade via social media, websites, billboard, newspaper.

Wildfest event

Messages focused on:

Raising awareness that buying or consuming wildlife can contribute to environmental destruction

Raising awareness that buying and selling wildlife kill wild animals

Making people feel concerned about wildlife and endangered species

Making people respect the law against illegal wildlife trade

Encouraging people to take action to support wildlife protection

Discouraging people from buying or consuming wildlife or wildlife products

Rapid Asia, a research agency hired to conduct evaluation study

KAP Score

Pre and post design was used: Pre-stage with no exposure to the campaign, and after a few days, post-stage with exposure to campaign materials

Target group: Age 18 up to 64 years: Residents of Hanoi, Vietnam; 50/50 split between males/females

Data collection method: Online using a well-established online panel in Vietnam

Sampling method used was quota sampling to ensure representation of the population

Total sample size N=420

The PSAs were shown online via online streaming. Each respondent tested two PSAs and they were tested in rotation order and in random pairs to eliminate any form of order-bias

4% of those surveyed in Hanoi intend to buy wildlife in the future (compared to 26% who bought in the past 12 months)

26% of those surveyed have bought medicine or other products made from wildlife in the past 12 months (baseline data not available).

Overall, 75 percent of the population surveyed said they had seen the PSAs when shown pictures of them

Of those reached 17 percent could recall that FREELAND was the sponsor of the campaign.

Of those reached, most saw it via internet, followed by TV, newspaper, magazines and events (e.g., WildFest).

Between 48 and 57 percent said the PSAs made they stop and think about the issue and many said would talk to others about the PSA messages.

Overall KAP index for past buyers of wildlife products was 23 points higher at endline than at baseline and for non-buyers change was 7 points.

More than half of respondents were aware of the WildFest event. Of those, 52 percent reported they had attended. Among all survey respondents who had also attended the WildFest event, the shift in KAP index was 35 points.

Main reason to buy wildlife products is medicine (85%), followed by jewelry or

P A G E | 20

fashion items (36%) and decoration for the home (36%)

Purchasers are generally higher income

Wildlife products are bought in traditional Chinese stores (53%), from private individuals (48%), open air markets (35%) and via the internet (35%)

Reasons for not buying in the future include that it is wrong (85%), products come from endangered species (73%), it is against the law (68%), no desire (44%) and no benefits of buying (42%)

Most (94%) believed that the government should put in more efforts to protect wildlife.

Ivory Campaign, China (ivory). WildAid, Save the Elephants and African Wildlife Foundation

Dates of campaign: 2013-2014

(Source: WildAid 2014 (ivory))

Objective: Reduce the demand for elephant ivory in China

Target: Residents in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou

Key message: “Say No to Ivory”

Media Outlets: featured in television ads and billboards

Baseline interviews conducted in November 2012 with residents in 3 cities: Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou N=961; Endline interviews replicated in October 2014 N= 935 urban residents in the same 3 cities

Samples weighed according to the Yearbook of Statistics of Chinese Cities in 2013; Urban residents who have lived in Beijing, Shanghai, or Guangzhou for over one year

Age: 18 years old and older where 18 -35 year old accounted for 40.2%, 36 -50 year old accounted for 37.8%, and t hose above 50 years old accounted for 22%.

In-person, questionnaire.

Income: Monthly income bet ween RMB 0 to over RMB 10001.

70% aware of elephant poaching problem compared to 46% in 2012

Increase awareness on how ivory is obtained (48% from 33%)

Beijing more aware of ivory from poached elephants (53% from 25%)

49% can’t tell the difference between illegal and legal ivory. Improved in knowledge that they should ask for a certificate.

56.1% saw WildAid PSAs featuring Yao Ming or Li Bingbing and 90.1% of those said they wouldn’t buy ivory after viewing the PSAs.

52.9% cited graphic and cruel images of poached elephants as the most effective way to persuade consumers to end consumption.

Rhino Horn Campaign, China (ivory). WildAid, Save the Elephants and African Wildlife Foundation

Dates of campaign: 2013-2014 (launched April 2013)

Objective: Reduce the demand for rhino horn in China

Target: Residents in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou

Key message: “Say No to Rhino Horn”

Media Outlets: featured in television ads and billboards

Baseline interviews conducted in November 2012 with residents in 3 cities: Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou N=963; Endline interviews replicated in October 2014 N= 935 urban residents in the same 3 cities

Samples weighed according to the Yearbook of Statistics of Chinese Cities in 2013; Urban residents who

50% aware of wild rhino poaching problem compared to 33% in 2012

Nearly half, 49.4% of participants in 2012 and 46.3% in 2014, believed that rhino horn could be legally purchased from official stores

2014 survey showed a 23.5% reduction in the belief that rhino horn has a medicinal effect, falling from 58.2% in 2012 to 44.5% in 2014.

P A G E | 21

(Source: WildAid 2014 (rhino horn)

have lived in Beijing, Shanghai, or Guangzhou for over one year

Age: 18 years old and older where 18 -35 year old accounted for 40.2%, 36 -50 year old accounted for 37.8%, and t hose above 50 years old accounted for 22%.

In-person, questionnaire.

Income: Monthly income bet ween RMB 0 to over RMB 10001.

Of participants who do not buy rhino horn, 95% said the Chinese government should take stricter action to prevent the use of rhino horns. Even 87% (compared to 72% in 2012) of those who purchase rhino horns agreed with stricter restrictions

More than 90% of interviewees think poaching poses a serious (or very serious) threat to rhinos, compared to 74% in 2012. The increase was most pronounced in Beijing, where awareness of the seriousness of poaching grew from 6.1% to 54%.

More than 92% (90% in 2012) of all respondents believe that trade in rhino horn is illegal. In 1977, China signed CITES and banned all international trade in rhino horns. In 1993, the State Council banned rhino horn sales within China

40% of participants interviewed in 2014 had watched PSAs featuring ambassadors Yao Ming or Jackie Chan and 90.9% of those said they wouldn’t buy rhino horn after viewing the PSAs

In 2014, 44.4% of residents cited seeing graphic images of poached rhinos as the most effective way to persuade consumers to end their ivory consumption

Illegal Wildlife Trade campaign, Vietnam. WWF.

Dates of campaign: No info

(Source: Olmeda 2015)

Objectives: Deliver messages to reduce demand for consumption of rhino horn, ivory, and tiger to top leaders of the world

Target: General public, wealthy people, leaders

Key message: Rhino horn is the same stuff as human nails. Still want some?

Media Outlets: mass media such as newspapers, television, in public areas as well as social media platforms like Facebook

Events, workshops, collaterals, outreach

N/A N/A

Trafficking Networks and Government

Objectives: Achieve high-level government

Events, workshops, collaterals, outreach

N/A N/A

P A G E | 22

Commitment, Vietnam. WCS.

Dates of campaign: No info

(Source: Olmeda 2015)

commitment to illegal wildlife trade in Vietnam

Target: Government, policy makers

Awareness Raising through Public Service Announcements, Vietnam. Education for Nature – Vietnam.

Dates of campaign: No info

(Source: Olmeda 2015)

Objectives: Elevate wildlife issue among public/ consumers, address myths regarding the magic qualities of certain medicines and status in Vietnam

Target: General public

Mass media, outreach activities, collaterals, events

N/A N/A

“No more buyers, no more killers,” Vietnam. WildAid/CHANGE

Dates of campaign: No info

(Source: Olmeda 2015)

Objectives: Raise the profile of rhino horn issue and increase the level of public engagement in Vietnam

Target: Business sector, monks, doctors, children, women

Key Message: stop using rhino horn

Mascot, events, billboards, collaterals, outreach activities, networking, study visits, workshops, community leaders, mass media

N/A N/A

Pride campaign, Thailand. WCS.

Dates of campaign: No info

Objectives: Increase numbers of five ungulates (including Indochinese tigers) in Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary in Thailand

Reduce poaching of ungulates and demand and

Media placement, outreach, targeted communication

N/A N/A

P A G E | 23

(Source: WCS nd)

supply of ungulate meat by the local community; increase reporting and enforcement of wildlife poaching and trading

Targets:

Community members, including teachers and students in 20 local schools in Lansak district

Owners of restaurants and food shops; owners of market stalls

P A G E | 25

2. STRATEGIES, CHANNELS, AND INFLUENCERS USED IN THE CAMPAIGNS

A majority of the campaigns focused on awareness raising about wildlife consumption, trade, and

depletion of species. They targeted the general public—including those in different age groups and

socioeconomic strata. Messages provided information on endangerment of species, including the

status of certain animals and education about laws and regulations, as well as the importance of

conservation. The iThink campaign messages focused on raising awareness and changing attitudes.

The campaigns included a “Call to Action” (protect wildlife, don’t buy or consume, say no…) as part

of the messaging strategy. Media strategies included posting PSAs (billboards, videos, collaterals) in

high-traffic areas and short films disseminated on TV, social media/website/online platforms, and

events for large public audiences. These often featured key opinion leaders (KOLs). Some utilized

social mobilization strategies such as WildFest events (one-time events) for the youth, competitions,

and other similar activities.

The “Pride” campaign in Thailand aimed to help reduce poaching and demand for ungulates

(including tigers) (WCS nd). It engaged community members including teachers and students in local

schools, as well owners of restaurants, food shops, and market stalls. This was the only campaign

our search found that attempted to engage both the “demand” and “supply” sides of wildlife

consumption.

Finally, the Trafficking Networks and Government Commitment campaign in Vietnam aimed at

engaging high-level officials and policy makers in the efforts to combat illegal wildlife trafficking

(Olmedo 2015).

In Vietnam, two campaigns not cited in Table 10 above addressed underlying drivers of status and

medicinal value associated with wildlife use in order to reduce consumer demand.

The Breaking the Brand campaign (Johnson, 2014) to reduce rhino horn consumption in Vietnam

attempted to evoke fear and anxiety in users by suggesting it would have a negative impact on their

social status (thus turning the existing social norm on its head) (Johnson 2014). Messages

emphasized rhino horn consumption’s negative effects on one’s personal status and health as well as

on the health of family and associates. Based on their qualitative research, the campaign strategists

believed that users had no or very little empathy for the animals per se, so that a “protect a species”

message would have little appeal. (In addition, users seem unaffected by the deaths of rangers who

protect rhinos from poachers, but there appears to be an emerging sense of shame about the impact

on wives and children of those rangers.)

Traffic’s Chi campaign in Vietnam also aimed to reduce rhino horn consumption (World Wildlife

Fund 2014). It targeted wealthy urban businessmen aged 30-55 years old and used results from

consumer research to address their motivations—particularly the power and credibility they believe

rhino horn bestows on them and how it enhances their image with others. TRAFFIC (2013) found

that businessmen generally wanted to maintain a healthy lifestyle for themselves and their loved

ones. Major messages included:

• ‘Be Aware’: Wise men know the truth. They use natural means to keep their body free of

toxins. Vitality comes from lifestyle, not from a piece of horn.

• ‘Character’: Character comes from within. A successful businessman relies on his will and

strength of mind. Success comes from opportunities you create, not from a piece of horn.

• ‘Masculinity’: A man’s allure and charisma come from within, not from a piece of horn.

P A G E | 26

• ‘Spirituality’: Good luck comes in many forms. Health. Success. Respect. The lucky man

knows that the tallest towers rise from the ground, not from a piece of horn

The champions or spokespersons in the Chi campaign were successful businessmen with high social

standing who could serve as role models for typical consumers. Studies found that social networks

of elite peers were particularly important for rhino horn users (TRAFFIC & WWF 2014, Ipsos 2013,

TRAFFIC 2007).

A common objective of campaigns that have been implemented was to address powerful social

norms—not only in terms of behaviors, but in terms of underlying values and both conscious and

unconscious needs. As pointed out by Drury (2009) in a study on wild animal consumption in

Vietnam, “major societal shifts are required regarding the importance of status—or at least the roles

of consumption in demonstrating status—resulting in a reduction in the symbolic values of wildlife

products as a medium for communicating prestige.” Consumers may buy wildlife products for

decorative or medicinal uses, but also because of the need to feel “valued, safe, powerful, accepted,

respected, connected with history or one’s cultural heritage,” or to have the satisfaction of

possessing what was once accessible only to the elite.

3. RESULTS OF THE CAMPAIGNS

Of the ten campaigns (Table 10) five were systematically evaluated using baseline and post-surveys.

These five campaigns had stated objectives of reducing the demand for consumption wildlife and

wildlife products. The evaluation of these campaigns found that they were successful in reaching

target audiences and raising their awareness about wildlife consumption. As a result of these

campaigns, 62 percent of the urban population surveyed in China were reached (iThink Campaign

China 2015). Similarly, 63 percent were reached in Thailand (iThink Campaign Thailand 2016) and 75

percent in Vietnam (iThink Campaign Vietnam 2016). Among those reached by the iThink campaign

in Thailand, 82 percent were consumers of wildlife products.

The evaluations found an increase in the awareness of poaching; among the people surveyed during

the Ivory Campaign in China (WildAid 2014) there was an increase of 24 percent in awareness of

poaching between 2012 and 2014. Furthermore, a 27 percent increase in awareness was noted

between 2012 and 2014 by the Rhino Campaign in China (WildAid 2014). Evaluations of these five

campaigns showed an increased awareness around the illegality of the consumption of wildlife

products and a positive perception of engagement in wildlife protection among those surveyed. A

survey conducted in 2014 as a part of the Rhino Campaign in China (WildAid 2014) showed a 23.5

percent reduction in the belief that rhino horn has a medicinal effect, falling from 58.2 percent in

2012 to 44.5 percent in 2014.

The evaluations of the five campaigns revealed findings on the campaigns’ impact on consumer

attitudes and behavior. The iThink Campaign in Vietnam (iThink Campaign Vietnam 2016) reported

that between 54-71 percent of people surveyed said that public service announcements (PSAs) made

them stop and think about the issue of wildlife conservation and felt empowered to discuss the

topics with others. The same campaign revealed that only 4 percent of those surveyed in Hanoi,

Vietnam intend to buy wildlife in the future compared to 26 percent who had made a wildlife

purchase in the past 12 months (iThink Campaign Vietnam 2016). However, future intention to buy

wildlife products is influenced by past buying behavior. Past buyers of wildlife products were found

to be more than 12 times more likely to state that they may buy wildlife products in the future

P A G E | 27

compared to those who did not buy wildlife products in the past 12 months (12 percent vs. 1

percent).

The only campaign (among the five evaluated) that showed some impact on actual consumption was

the iThink Campaign in China. The evaluation reported a decline of 11 percent in ivory consumption

within the past 12 months (iThink Campaign China 2015). However, the same evaluation noted that

this decline could likely be due to a recent auction ban in China as well as a slowing economy.

VI. SUMMARY INSIGHTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM

THE LITERATURE

While the proportions of those purchasing/using ivory, pangolin, rhino horn, and tiger are not large

vis-à-vis total populations in the countries of interest to this study, they nevertheless constitute a

significantly large number of people (especially in China) and are sufficient to continue driving

markets for those species. For ivory, even many of those who have never purchased or owned

products aspire to ownership. For the other three species, the markets are driven by repeat users

who have a strong inclination to continue.

For ivory, the primary driver is the special value of the material and the status associated with

owning (or giving) such a fine product (whether for home décor, as a piece of jewelry, or a religious

carving). For all of the other species studied, the main driver of consumption was the particular

medicinal power/s held by the respective animals (in particular when captured in the wild). These

powers and related uses varied by species, but not greatly from country to country. The medicinal-

value driver was also highly associated with the status driver.

The profiles of users for all of these products was quite broad—not restricted to a specific age

group or to males or females. Consumers were by necessity mostly of higher socio-economic status.

A large segment of ivory purchasers consists of professional women. Medicinal value-driven

consumers tend to be status-driven consumers as well. The high prices and rarity of the products

contribute to rather than detract from their value, and many purchasers also buy these products as

gifts.

The research reviewed here indicates most consumers are aware that the animals in question are

endangered and that purchasing them or products made with them is illegal. As mentioned, an

exception is purchasers of ivory. Once informed, ivory purchasers were also most willing to consider

alternative products. Medical or health value-driven customers of other species tended to believe Western

medicine could not offer the same benefits as medicines made with wild animal parts; alternate products

would not be as beneficial and would not be considered as replacements.

In China, Thailand, and Vietnam there have been few campaigns targeted at specific species (except

perhaps for ivory in China) and very few have been evaluated. Most have focused on raising

awareness and educating the general populace about the effects of wildlife consumption on animal

species and the illegality of the trade. There is still room for such efforts, but campaigns must also be

better targeted at regular consumers of specific wildlife products and their motivations. Many

consumers felt their own behaviors had little importance or effect; many also felt there was little

danger that existing laws would be enforced and they would be punished for illegal purchases.

The campaigns studied indicated peer pressure and the opinion of traditional Chinese medical

practitioners have the greatest potential to influence consumers. Traditional medicine practitioners

(TCM) are common providers of wildlife products. In China, they play an important role in

P A G E | 28

influencing beliefs regarding these products (Rapid Asia 2016, TRAFFIC & WWF 2014, Liu et al.

2016). Evaluation studies of the iTHINK campaign conducted in China, Vietnam, and Thailand found

that those surveyed ranked TCM practitioners very high in terms of credibility (Min et al. 2007).

However, no campaigns were found that attempted to affect TCM practices or to use them as

spokespersons.

Suggesting alternate products to ivory purchases may be a promising tactic. Designers of the ITHINK

campaign in China also suggested that the message “purchasing ivory may be bad luck” would be

effective in the context of information about Chinese belief that animal cruelty may bring bad luck.

Suggesting alternative products to long-time medicinal-purchasers will be more difficult and will

require strong involvement of influential people.

Communication and policy and enforcement must go hand in hand. Consumer research indicated

the public is quite aware that existing laws are not being enforced. Stronger enforcement combined

with stronger messages about the consequences of buying or selling illegal products are needed.

New laws are also needed (iTHINK 2016). Vallianos (2016) suggested China should be encouraged

to remove pangolins from the Pharmacopoeia of the People’s Republic of China and end the use of

scales in patented medicines and clinical trials. Chinese and Vietnamese traditional medicine journals

and websites should also be encouraged to stop advocating use of pangolin scales in medical

treatment.

The growth of social media is now being exploited by both the wildlife market and by those

attempting to constraint. Access to and purchase of illegal products with impunity is made vastly

easier by the Internet. However, several campaigns (iTHINK in Vietnam and Thailand) have

attempted to utilize the power of social media to reach broad general audiences in conservation

efforts. Much remains to be done to use the power of this channel to target those regular

purchasers of wildlife with messages that speak to their personal motivations and provide them with

alternative voices, alternative practices, and the will to change.

VII. RESEARCH GAPS

The review of available research provides rich information on the key drivers for consumption of

ivory, rhino horn, pangolin and tiger products in China, Vietnam and Thailand. However, there is

need for additional information to plan communication campaigns aimed to reduce demand for these

products in each country. Further research among the key consumer segments of each species in-

country is necessary to elicit insights useful to define priority target audience segments, develop

relevant messages that will resonate with these segments, and select appropriate channels and

activities. The following are key questions that need still need to be answered for China and for

Thailand, where formative research is planned under the USAID Wildlife Asia Activity (formative

research for Vietnam will not be conducted considering that the Saving Species project will conduct

a similar formative research).

A. FOR CHINA

1.1 BUYERS AND CONSUMERS

• Are there socio-demographic and psychographic differences among those who buy, use/own

and accept ivory (and rhino horn) as gifts? For those who “use” or “own”, did they buy

these products or were they handed down from previous generations?

P A G E | 29

• What specific products do they buy e.g. ivory tusks, ivory carvings, ivory trinkets, rhino

horn, rhino horn powder, medicines containing pangolin (if aware), pangolin scales, pangolin

meat, tiger products, etc. and for what purpose?

• Where do they buy their products? How much do they cost? How often do they buy

(correlate with product bought)? Do they think these products are affordable?

• Do they plan to buy ivory/rhino horn/ pangolin/tiger products in future? Why and where?

• Do they think that buying ivory/rhino horn/pangolin/tiger products is illegal? If illegal, do

they think that they will suffer penalties with purchase? Why or why not?

• Who are the people that these various consumer segments will listen to regarding their

consumption of wildlife products?

• Do they know that domestic sale of ivory will be banned by end-2017? Are they aware of

the penalties involved? What will they do when this ban is fully in effect? Will they buy

abroad when they travel and bring back home? Will they shift to other wildlife products?

• What are the sources of medicinal beliefs for tiger/rhino horn/pangolin? Do these beliefs

come from elders, peers, TCM practitioners, western medicine practitioners, previous

users, their own experience? Are there belief sources markedly different for rhino horn

powder, pangolin meat, pangolin scales, medicines containing pangolin, tiger bone and tiger

plaster? Are there socio-demographic, psychographic differences among the consumers of

these specific products?

• Are these medicinal products used alone or to supplement other “medicines” (what

medicines)? Have they experienced healing or health benefits with use of these products?

Will offering alternatives to these products reduce their desire for the wildlife product in

question?

• Will stigmatizing buyers and users of ivory/rhino horn/pangolin/tiger products work?

• What are the socio-demographic, psychographic characteristics of buyer, users, and gift

receivers of specific wildlife products? Can they be further divided into sub-segments? Based

on what criteria?

• What are the socio-demographic and psychographic characteristics of buyers and users of

tiger products? Can they be further divided into sub-segments? Based on what criteria?

1.2 GIFT RECEIVERS

• What do they feel if they are gifted with ivory, rhino horn, pangolin? What are these specific

gifts?

• Do they use these “gifts” for themselves, their families?

• What are the benefits (status, medicinal, religious, etc.) of using these specific wildlife gifts?

• Do they themselves buy ivory, rhino horn, pangolin and/or tiger products? Why do they

buy and where? Do they also give these items as gifts?

P A G E | 30

• Do they know that domestic sale of ivory will be banned by end-2017? Are they aware of

the penalties involved? What will they do when this ban is fully in effect?

• Will they be able to “refuse” to accept the gift of ivory/rhino horn/pangolin/tiger? If no,

why? If Yes, what will motivate or convinces them to “refuse” to accept the gift?

1.3. TCM PRACTITIONERS

• What are their beliefs underlying medicinal and/or health benefits of rhino horn powder,

pangolin scale, meat and liquor, tiger bone wine and plaster and other relevant products?

What are the sources of these beliefs? How strongly do they hold these beliefs?

• Have they prescribed these products in the past, currently? For what ailments? To be used

alone or with supplementation from other medicines?

• Where do these products come from – farmed or endangered species, locally or from other

countries (specify which)?

• Do they think that these products are illegal?

• Do they think that they can prescribe these products in future indefinitely? Why, why not?

What will make them agree to stop prescribing these products?

B. FOR THAILAND

• What are the socio-demographic and psychographic characteristics of buyer, users, and gift

receivers of ivory? Can they be further divided into sub-segments? Based on what criteria?

• What specific wildlife product (ivory tusks, carvings, trinkets; tiger parts, bone wine, bone

plaster) do they buy or use? How much do they cost, and do they think it is affordable?

• What are the socio-demographic and psychographic characteristics of buyers and users of

tiger products? Can they be further divided into sub-segments? Based on what criteria?

• What socio-ecological factors are driving demand for ivory and tiger products?

• Who are the influencers of ivory and tiger product consumers?

• Are there differences in gender among ivory and tiger consumers, and among sub-segments?

• Where do ivory and tiger product consumers live? Where do they buy these products? Do

those who buy ivory also buy tiger products and vice-versa? Do they also buy or consume

other wildlife products (specify which), and for what purpose?

• For religious/spiritual-driven consumption, why do they value ivory or tiger part/product for

religious/spiritual purposes? What specific ivory or tiger part/product do they associate with

religion or spirituality? Why? Is it better to have the carvings/ivory or tiger part/product at

home or near their body? What is the influence of Buddhist monks and other

religious/spiritual leaders? How strong are these religious beliefs and association with ivory

P A G E | 31

and tiger part/ products and availability at home or near their body? What is the influence

of family, friends, etc.

• Do they perceive that the purchasing of ivory or tiger parts is illegal? Do they believe that

there is a possibility that the ivory they buy or have comes from African elephants or tiger

part/product comes from poached tigers?

• Who do they gift ivory to? For what purposes? Do they plan to gift ivory in the future?

• Why do these consumers buy tiger parts/products (specify which product – bone wine,

bone plaster, etc.)? Where do these products come from? Where do they buy these

products? How/from whom did they learn about the medicinal value of tiger products?

Have they experienced health benefits with taking these products?

• Do we need to target consumers according to species or by other demographic

characteristics? If yes, why and how? If no, why not?

• Who/what are their influencers, particularly those who may dissuade or de-incentivize use?

Who/what will make them change their consumption and purchase patterns i.e., stop

consuming wildlife? Do we need to propose alternatives to wildlife parts and products?

• What types of tactics can be used within the cultural context of the consumer segments?

Considering that loss of face is part of the culture, will a “shaming” strategy work?

• What are the most effective channels to reach them? How can Wildlife Asia gain access to

them and/or their leaders and influencers?

P A G E | 36

VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY

CITES. 2016. “Vietnam Rhino Horn Demand Reduction Campaign.” http://www.hsi.org/assets/pdfs/vn_rhino_horn_campaign_2016.pdf.

China Market Research Group for IFAW. 2016. "Ivory Demand Analysis and Social Marketing Strategy"

Do Thi Thanh Huyen, Bui Huu Manh et al, 2011. Consumption of wild animal products in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam - Results of resident and student survey. Ho Chi Minh City. Vietnam

Drury, Rebecca. 2009. “Identifying and Understanding Consumers of Wild Animal Products in Hanoi, Vietnam: Implications for Conservation Management.” Flora and Fauna International.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/32898587_Identifying_and_understanding_consumers_of_wild_animal_products_in_Hanoi_Vietnam_implications_for_conservation_management.

Education for Nature. 2016. Pangolin Consumer Crime in Vietnam: The Results of ENV Surveys and Enforcement Campaigns, 2011-2015.

Gratwicke, Brian, Judy Mills, Adam Dutton, Grace Gabriel, Barney Long, John Seidensticker, Belinda Wright, Wang You, and Li Zhang. 2008. “Attitudes Toward Consumption and Conservation of Tigers in China.” Edited by Tom Tregenza. PLoS ONE 3 (7). International Fund For Animal Welfare: e2544. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002544.

Ipsos. 2013. Consumer Reseearch on Rhino Horn Usage in Vietnam.

iTHINK. 2016. “Wildlife Conservation Global Forum and Behavior Change Campaign Support Platform

Toolkit.” www.ithink-now.org/toolkit.

iThink Campaign China. 2015. "PSA Impact Evaluation on Ivory Trade in China."

http://www.freeland. org/wp-content/downloads/ toolkits/iThink/ITHINK-ads- videos-surveys-China.zipiThink Campaign Thailand. 2016. "Campaign Impact Evaluation in Thailand."

http://www.freeland. org/wp-content/downloads/ toolkits/iThink/ITHINK-ads- videos-surveys-Thailand.zip

iThink Campaign Vietnam. 2016. "Campaign Impact Evaluation in Vietnam."

http://www.freeland. org/wp-content/downloads/ toolkits/iThink/ITHINK-ads- videos-surveys-Vietnam.zip

Johnson, Lynn. 2014. “Project Proposal Breaking the Brand of Rhino Horn in Vietnam.” http://breakingthebrand.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Project-Proposal-Breaking-the-Rhino-Horn-Brand-in-Vietnam.pdf.

———. 2015. “Breaking the Brand of Rhino Horn in Vietnam The First 12 Months.” http://breakingthebrand.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Breaking-The-Brand-Project-The-First-12-Months.pdf.

Kennaugh, Alex. 2016. “RHINO RAGE: WHAT IS DRIVING ILLEGAL CONSUMER DEMAND FOR RHINO HORN.” https://www.savetherhino.org/assets/0002/8719/Rhino_rage_report_by_Alex_Kennaugh_Dec_2016.pdf.

P A G E | 37

Lertzman, Renee, and Karen Baragona. 2016. “Reducing Desire for Ivory.” https://c402277.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/publications/981/files/original/ReducingDesireforIvory_011917_print.pdf?1484847912.

Min, Shen, Wang Jin, Liu Xing, and Liu Lixia. 2007. “Report on Chinese Residents’ Ivory Consumption and Elephant Conservation Awareness.pptx - Google Drive.”

National Geographic. 2015. “Reducing Demand for Ivory: Country Summaries.” National Geographic. http://press.nationalgeographic.com/files/2015/09/NGS2015_Final-August-11-RGB.pdf.

Nguyen, Trang. 2016. “The Social Trade Network: Facebook’s Relationship Status with Wildlife Traders in Vietnam,” January. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.30424.49929.

Olmedo, A. 2015. “Evaluating Behaviour Change Interventions: A Case Study in Vietnam.” Thesis Presented to Imperial College, London. http://www.rhinoresourcecenter.com/index.php?s=1&act=refs&CODE=ref_detail&id=1469115530

“Survey Results in China Reveal Strong Public Support for Pangolin Protection : Humane Society International.” 2016. Humane Society International. http://www.hsi.org/news/press_releases/2016/05/china-pangolin-survey-050616.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/.

TRAFFIC. 2013. “Rhino Horn Consumers, Who Are They?” https://www.wwf.de/fileadmin/fm-wwf/Publikationen-PDF/Rhino-horn-consumers--Konsumentenforschung-Nashorn-WWF-TRAFFIC.pdf.

Vallianos, Christina, Daniel Challender, Paul Hilton, Scott Hurd, Mark Leong, and Michelle Zhang. 2016. “Pangolins on the Brink.” WildAid. https://wildaid.org/sites/default/files/resources/WildAid-Pangolins on the Brink-2016.pdf.

The Nature Conservancy. 2015. "Ivory: Inside the Mind of the Chinese Consumer"

WildAid. 2014. “Ivory Demand in China, 2012-2014.” www.wildaid.org.

WildAid. 2012. “Ivory Demand in China.” www.wildaid.org.

WildAid. 2014. "Rhino Horn Demand, 2012-2014." www.wildaid.org.

WildAid. 2015. "Pangolins on the Brink." www.wildaid.org

Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), Thailand (nd). Tigers and Tiger Prey Conservation Pride

Campaign. http://www.wcsthailand.org/english/pride-campaign

World Wildlife Fund 2014. Novel Chi campaign launched in Viet Nam on World Rhino Day aims to

reduce demand for rhino horn. (http://www.wwf.org.za/?12061/Chi-campaign-launch).